I hope both parties will nominate candidates with fresh insights, perspectives, and approaches to the issues facing our country economically, politically, and socially. Candidates who are willing to lead us into an era of cooperation to find the best solutions for our country and participate in truly resolving conflict around the world. I think Hillary brings to much of the old, and too much baggage. Would love to see the youth of America really get involved in the political process. That would be fun.
Amen to that!
Edit to add:
When I was in high school in Massachusetts, I was selected to attend the American Legion Boys State program. It was one of the most significant and important weeks of my life, and I have been volunteering as a counselor at the program ever since (31 years and counting) to help teach high school juniors about how a democratically elected government works (or at least is intended to work) and leadership in general. Over the course of a week, the kids are divided into small groups that organize themselves into local/municipal governments, and they are also randomly divided into two political parties that will form a state wide government (they also need to develop the platforms for their parties, which are a completely blank slate when they start). Sometimes we even have a group of kids that decided to break off and form a 3rd party, which is really cool when it happens. They then will be given realistic scenarios that they need address and to solve, as well as debating and passing ordinances (at the municipal level) and bill/laws (at the state-wide level). I mentioned all this for two reasons:
1. If you have or know a kid (boy or girl as there is also a Girls State program) who is academically sound and has yet to finish their junior year in high school and they have any interest at all in government and/or leadership in general (even if just at the student council level), I highly encourage you to learn more about this program to see whether it is a fit and if so, encourage them to apply.
2. Every June through this program I get to interact with 400+ of the best and brightest high school juniors in the state of Massachusetts. And every June when I leave the program I feel completely invigorated by their energy and enthusiasm and heartened that there are at least some young people who do care about politics and understand what civic responsibility really means. This same program happens in all 50 states, and 2 boys from each state will also be chosen to attend Boys Nation in Washington, DC in July, which is similar to Boys State except they will form a mock-government at the Federal level rather than State level. It really is amazing to watch it all unfold. Now I know only a small fraction of these kids will ever enter public service, and those that do may lose that youthful exuberance and idealism by that time, but I know for a fact that the cast majority will be better citizens as it relates to voting and civic engagement in general as a result, so it does give me some hope for the future.
Many of our elected officials attended Boys State and Girls State as kids. This includes Bill Clinton, who was elected to represent Arkansas at Boys Nation in 1963 and it was then that this famous photo was taken:
http://www.boysandgirlsstate.org/boys.html
[Edited on 3/5/2015 by gondicar]
We have something in common, '85 BS CT. It didnt impact my life as much as yours, but I was gratefrul for the nomination and partiicipating.
Nice. 
Everyone takes something different from the program and that's all good, but it is always cool to run into guys 5 or 10 years later and have them tell me how much the week meant to them and how it led them to do x, y or z. In fact one of the guys who I went to Boys State with in '84 and also came back as a counselor for several years after that is now on the Los Angeles City Council (and whether you agree with his progressive politics or not, he is an example of a politician who does indeed put his constituents first and works as hard as anyone I know in any profession).
[Edited on 3/5/2015 by gondicar]
Damning perhaps, but nothing more than accusations, made mostly by political foes. Evidence of rules violations or evidence of violations of any laws has yet to surface.
I agree Gondicar. The entire article was damning. The last paragraph was, oh - by the way, none of the wrongdoing was actually against the law.
Currently I don't believe this is a scandal.
Damning perhaps, but nothing more than accusations, made mostly by political foes. Evidence of rules violations or evidence of violations of any laws has yet to surface.
I agree Gondicar. The entire article was damning. The last paragraph was, oh - by the way, none of the wrongdoing was actually against the law.
Currently I don't believe this is a scandal.
But you can bet that the adversaries will surely make it one. Any PR they can gain out of it is good to go and can be used to raise boatloads of money. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...it's enough to have someone like Rep. Trey Gowdy shoot his wad.
Damning perhaps, but nothing more than accusations, made mostly by political foes. Evidence of rules violations or evidence of violations of any laws has yet to surface.
I agree Gondicar. The entire article was damning. The last paragraph was, oh - by the way, none of the wrongdoing was actually against the law.
Currently I don't believe this is a scandal.
But you can bet that the adversaries will surely make it one. Any PR they can gain out of it is good to go and can be used to raise boatloads of money. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...it's enough to have someone like Rep. Trey Gowdy shoot his wad.
They're wasting their time. The Clintons are above anything that could be considered wrongdoing of any type whatsoever. The adversaries should know that by now.
[Edited on 3/6/2015 by alloak41]
No matter what the issue or the question, the response never varies. As long as it can be shown that it's happened before, it's all good. No big deal. No scandal here, because_________ did it too. Neutralized.
But does that tactic really move us ahead? When do we reach a point as a nation when our leaders stop repeating the same mistakes? Maybe if we stopped enabling bad behavior and insisted on a higher standard of ethics and transparency, we might start getting it.
Just follow the rules
Both did. That was the point.
So case closed. According to you.
I am reminded of one of the first speeding tickets I got. I pointed out to the officer that I was actually passed by several cars who were going faster than I was. "But YOU got caught.", was his reply.
In the 1970's there was an outcry that government and politicians should be held accountable.
Now, I see people defending actions of various politicians and media rep's when they get caught doing questionable to downright reprehensible acts because somebody on the other side of the aisle also did the same thing. One wrong cancels the other out.
Wake up, America.
No matter what the issue or the question, the response never varies. As long as it can be shown that it's happened before, it's all good. No big deal. No scandal here, because_________ did it too. Neutralized.
But does that tactic really move us ahead? When do we reach a point as a nation when our leaders stop repeating the same mistakes? Maybe if we stopped enabling bad behavior and insisted on a higher standard of ethics and transparency, we might start getting it.
Just follow the rules
Both did. That was the point.
So case closed. According to you.
I am reminded of one of the first speeding tickets I got. I pointed out to the officer that I was actually passed by several cars who were going faster than I was. "But YOU got caught.", was his reply.
In the 1970's there was an outcry that government and politicians should be held accountable.
Now, I see people defending actions of various politicians and media rep's when they get caught doing questionable to downright reprehensible acts because somebody on the other side of the aisle also did the same thing. One wrong cancels the other out.
Wake up, America.
So is it safe to assume you have never exceeded the speed limit since getting that ticket? Are you now that one car on the highway going 55 while everyone else whizzes by at 65+? I'm sure that you are not (since you said that it was "one of the first" tickets you got), which leads me to believe you think that some laws/rules are ok to break. Why is that?
My point in posting that Powell did the same thing was that there was a precedent and neither was in violation of rules/laws that were in place at the time, as far as we know. Are they really in the realm of "reprehensible" acts if they weren't in violation of rules/laws?
[Edited on 3/6/2015 by gondicar]
Gondicar - a very good and very fair question!
The answer: No, I didn't INITIALLY begin adjusting my driving speed. This first ticket, and many of the ones that came later bore very affordable fines. I guess I kinda had an attitude that the fine wasn't bad enough to curb my behavior.
But about two years ago, in my new home state of Georgia (and at the underpass of the exit of my childhood home of Hapeville), I got flagged in a construction zone. Short version: the fine was a whopping $738.00!
So, these days I keep my speed within a safe 8 mph of the limit. I get passed by a lot of cars and see a lot of middle fingers.
The lesson for our political leaders? More serious and more certain punishments for their transgressions against the laws of their country! An example or two (from either party or political affiliation - I don't care) might just set them straight.
My point in posting that Powell did the same thing was that there was a precedent and neither was in violation of rules/laws that were in place at the time, as far as we know. Are they really in the realm of "reprehensible" acts if they weren't in violation of rules/laws?
[Edited on 3/6/2015 by gondicar]
And Hillary stated that the Bush administration's secret email accounts were "shredding" the
Constitution. Is that reprehensible enough for you? That's in Hillary Clinton's own words and it's
on tape.
I'm not a Hillary supporter, but the law stating you had to use Gov't email was not passed until after she left the State Department.
In other words there was no speed limit to break. Right?
My point in posting that Powell did the same thing was that there was a precedent and neither was in violation of rules/laws that were in place at the time, as far as we know. Are they really in the realm of "reprehensible" acts if they weren't in violation of rules/laws?
[Edited on 3/6/2015 by gondicar]
And Hillary stated that the Bush administration's secret email accounts were "shredding" the
Constitution. Is that reprehensible enough for you? That's in Hillary Clinton's own words and it's
on tape.
Is what reprehensible, that someone or some people in the Bush admin supposedly had secret email accounts, or what Hillary Clinton supposedly said about it? I'm not familiar with either, but based on what I know I wouldn't classify Clinton's email account as "secret" since she was using it to conduct official business. Sounds like two different things to me.
By the way, did anyone she was emailing in or out of the State Dept notice or care that she wasn't using an official State Dept email address? If it was so reprehensible, why has it taken two years for anyone to bring it up publicly?
[Edited on 3/6/2015 by gondicar]
My point in posting that Powell did the same thing was that there was a precedent and neither was in violation of rules/laws that were in place at the time, as far as we know. Are they really in the realm of "reprehensible" acts if they weren't in violation of rules/laws?
[Edited on 3/6/2015 by gondicar]
And Hillary stated that the Bush administration's secret email accounts were "shredding" the
Constitution. Is that reprehensible enough for you? That's in Hillary Clinton's own words and it's
on tape.
You are confusing "secret" with "private". Secret was illegal. Private when Hillary was in the State Department was not.
Gondicar - a very good and very fair question!
The answer: No, I didn't INITIALLY begin adjusting my driving speed. This first ticket, and many of the ones that came later bore very affordable fines. I guess I kinda had an attitude that the fine wasn't bad enough to curb my behavior.
But about two years ago, in my new home state of Georgia (and at the underpass of the exit of my childhood home of Hapeville), I got flagged in a construction zone. Short version: the fine was a whopping $738.00!
So, these days I keep my speed within a safe 8 mph of the limit. I get passed by a lot of cars and see a lot of middle fingers.
The lesson for our political leaders? More serious and more certain punishments for their transgressions against the laws of their country! An example or two (from either party or political affiliation - I don't care) might just set them straight.
So, you do still exceed the speed limit, which even if only by 8 mph is still, in fact, breaking the law. Look, I understand the analogy you were making and I'm not saying speeding at 8-10 mph over the posted limit rises to the level of reprehensible. Heck, most of us do it, right? (I know I do) I'm just taking your analogy and trying to show that it can be used to make the exact opposite point as what you intended, which is that most of us consider speeding to be no big deal precisely because everyone does it!
As for our political leaders, I agree that we should have high expectations. But politicians are flawed people like all of us, and some cannot overcome their flaws and when caught breaking the rules or the law, they should be held accountable. I just think there needs to be some due process involved. I also think that there are already "an example of two" out there of serious punishment for serious transgressions. Here's some at the federal level since 2002, and there are many, many more examples at the state and local level (and these are just criminal convictions and doesn't include anyone caught and punished for ethical and/or rules violations)...
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes:
2009 to present:
Legislative Branch:
- Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the 4th count in a 20 count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea has the maximum sentence of 3 years. A sentencing judge has not yet ruled on the case. (2014)[1]
- Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would do so. (2013)[2][3][4]
- Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)[1]
- Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two and one-half years imprisonment. (2013)[5]
2002-2008:
Executive branch:
- Lewis Libby (R) Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney (R). 'Scooter' was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame Affair on March 6, 2007 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. His sentence was commuted by George W. Bush (R) on July 1, 2007. (2007)[6]
Legislative branch:
- William J. Jefferson (D-LA) was charged in August 2005 after the FBI seized $90,000 in cash from his home freezer. He was re-elected to the House in 2006, but lost in 2008. He was convicted November 13, 2009, of 11 counts of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison. (2009)[7] Jefferson's Chief of Staff Brett Pfeffer, was sentenced to 84 months for bribery. (2006) [8]
- Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal involves the efforts of Abramoff to influence Congressional action concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. See Executive branch convictions. Congressmen convicted in the Abramoff scandal include:
- Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors. Ney received 30 months in prison. (2007)[9]
- Duke Cunningham (R-CA) pleaded guilty November 28, 2005, to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion in what came to be called the Cunningham scandal and was sentenced to over eight years in prison. (2005)[10]
- Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to federal charges of money laundering and mail fraud in October 2005 and was sentenced to four years in prison. (2005)[11]
- Bill Janklow (R-SD) was convicted of second-degree manslaughter for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. Resigned from the House and given 100 days in the county jail and three years probation. (2003)[12]
- Jim Traficant (D-OH) was found guilty on ten felony counts of financial corruption, sentenced to eight years in prison and expelled from the House of Representatives. (2002) [13]
Hillary’s campaign is sinking faster than her husband’s boxers on Jeffery Epstein’s jet.
Hey Internet! We found your troll................
Hey Internet! We found your troll................
______________________________________________________________________
Q: What do you get when you offer a Liberal a penny for his thoughts?
A: Change.
Hey Internet! We found your troll................
______________________________________________________________________
Q: What do you get when you offer a Liberal a penny for his thoughts?
A: Change.
But you'd have to pay taxes on it first. Don't forget that part.
Hey Internet! We found your troll................
______________________________________________________________________
Q: What do you get when you offer a Liberal a penny for his thoughts?
A: Change.
Thanks for proving my point............... 
Hey Internet! We found your troll................
______________________________________________________________________
Q: What do you get when you offer a Liberal a penny for his thoughts?
A: Change.Thanks for proving my point...............
____________________________________________
You have yet to make a point.
That of course would require independent thought which liberals don't do.
Thanks for proving it again............... 😛
NBC’s Chuck Todd: I Already Have ‘Hillary Fatigue’
by Warner Todd Huston 29 Nov 2014
Chuck Todd, the new host of NBC’s long-running Sunday political show “Meet The Press,” gave a long interview to Salon.com in which he professed to hate the ratings game, is distressed when news people become the news, and confessed that he already has “Hillary fatigue.”
The NBC political news director started out his interview dismissing assertions that “Meet The Press” is a “broken” program, saying that instead of fixing the program, he is only trying to “make it better.”
But he said he also hates the ratings game. Todd said he understood that he was necessarily in the race for ratings, but felt that his program had more to offer. He was also upset that journalists who write about the media game only focus on ratings nearly to the exclusion of all else.
Todd said he was very pleased that his ratings in the all-important Washington, D.C. market had improved over the previous “Meet The Press” host’s.
“That to me is an important metric; if Washington cares about the show, that’s a start,” he said adding that if “opinion leaders” liked him, he must be on the right path.
One might understand his disgust at the ratings game, though. Since taking “Meet The Press” from former host David Gregory, his show has continued to stay in third place among the big three networks.
The new host was also stung by recent reports that NBC asked “Daily Show” comedian Jon Stweart to head “Meet The Press” before they turned to him.
Todd went on to insist that journalists shouldn’t “become part of a story.”
Salon.com then asked about the 2016 Democrat field. Todd said he was having a hard time seeing who might give Hillary a primary challenge. He immediately ruled out Maryland’s Martin O’Malley and Vermont’s self-proclaimed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. But Todd also felt that former Virginia Senator Jim Webb was also a no-go for 2016.
“He doesn’t strike me as having the hunger to do the campaigning you need to do,” Todd said.
While Todd understood why Hillary already jumped into the race, he also noted that he already has “Hillary fatigue.” And he isn’t the only one.
“The biggest problem she has is that a ton of people in the media have Hillary fatigue. I don’t know if the grass-roots Democrats do; eight years ago they did, which is why they looked to Obama. People had Hillary fatigue — really, Clinton fatigue — and were looking for a new direction. Now in the grass roots there’s some Clinton nostalgia, especially as Obama’s presidency looks shaky. But the Hillary fatigue in the press corps is going to be a challenge.”
The NBC political director is flogging his new book about President Obama entitled “The Stranger.” The project has elicited a comment from the subject of the book, too. This week, Obama called Todd’s book project “sad.”
All this before the illegal fund-raising and secret email scandals.
One minute, Muleboy says that NBC lies.
Next minute, Muleboy quotes NBC to make a point.
Why would Chuck Todd lie about having Hillary Clinton fatigue?
One minute, Muleboy says that NBC lies.
Next minute, Muleboy quotes NBC to make a point.
____________________________________________________________________
The point is obvious to anyone who can look past their political ideology.
NBC News, a liberal biased network, is reporting the early onset hillary fatigue even before the campaign donations scandal and now the email scandal and related crimes.
hillary's "trust" factor continues to crater and democrat operatives and openly expressing their deep concerns.
Latest polls Hillary is leading in them all. Really looking forward to the whining by Mule and Alloak after she wins in 2016.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
One minute, Muleboy says that NBC lies.
Next minute, Muleboy quotes NBC to make a point.
____________________________________________________________________
The point is obvious to anyone who can look past their political ideology.
NBC News, a liberal biased network, is reporting the early onset hillary fatigue even before the campaign donations scandal and now the email scandal and related crimes.
hillary's "trust" factor continues to crater and democrat operatives and openly expressing their deep concerns.
Like you ever look past your ideology.
But anyway, how do you know if Chuck Todd was lying or not? If he was lying, he played you for a fool. If he is telling the truth, you played yourself for a fool by quoting a network that you accuse of lying.
Latest polls Hillary is leading in them all. Really looking forward to the whining by Mule and Alloak after she wins in 2016.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Looks like she's got it in the bag. This thing is over.
Latest polls Hillary is leading in them all. Really looking forward to the whining by Mule and Alloak after she wins in 2016.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Looks like she's got it in the bag. This thing is over.
Yup just a matter of time.
Latest polls Hillary is leading in them all. Really looking forward to the whining by Mule and Alloak after she wins in 2016.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Looks like she's got it in the bag. This thing is over.
Yup just a matter of time.
_________________________________________________________
Yup, hillary is leading in the polls.
Of course she was leading in the polls in 2008, the last time she ran, and lost to a community organizer.
if she couldn't get her own party's nomination then, why should she get it this time?
Latest polls Hillary is leading in them all. Really looking forward to the whining by Mule and Alloak after she wins in 2016.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Looks like she's got it in the bag. This thing is over.
Yup just a matter of time.
_________________________________________________________
Yup, hillary is leading in the polls.
Of course she was leading in the polls in 2008, the last time she ran, and lost to a community organizer.
if she couldn't get her own party's nomination then, why should she get it this time?
How many times did Romney run? How about Nixon? Not every candidate won the nomination on his first attempt.
I heard some of the experts predict that Hilary will just stay under the radar, run the clock, and hope the media circles the wagons around her. In this email case, I'm not sure I agree the media will let it slide that easy.
Of all the things that might rankle the media, stifling the free flow of information would probably be near the top of the list.
